|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?



Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: 2nd amendment [Re: Ferris]
#10853359 - 08/13/09 02:44 PM (14 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Ferris said: Now, my personal opinion of how citizens should act (ignoring legal technicalities for a moment) is that it is up to men to own a firearm and to properly maintain and store and train with it.
But not women?
Quote:
This inherently stabilizes society and had far more upsides than downsides. As for open carry, this shouldn't be done just because we can, from an ethical standpoint. If a persons life is not in some sort of immediate danger (IE in the old wild west or in modern times like when someone is carrying large amounts of cash), then there is no reason to be threatening to others.
If people feel threatened by the sight of a gun then they are foolish.
Quote:
When there is no danger present, the presence of a gun is detrimental to the safety of people in the immediate vicinity.
Yes, the gun may leap from the holster all by itself and open fire on the "wimmin and childruns"
Quote:
I give special exception in this case to large congregations of people (churches, stores, etc) where safety of the group may necessitate the presence of a limited number of guns in trusted hands.
Gosh. Thanks!
Quote:
In these cases, perhaps it is best that certain individuals be granted special permission by the group. They are private establishments after all. A security guard or someone designated with similar authority is appropriate. But why would it be better for everyone to bring their own gun? This isn't about individual safety, it's about safety of the group, of the minority. I can see why people wouldn't want to limit this to just militias, but to take it to an extreme is equally dangerous.
No-one has suggested that everyone bring there own gun. Limiting how many can is moronic.
Really dude, get a life.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
PreparationH
apply daily


Registered: 03/28/05
Posts: 18,335
Loc: Amsterdam
Last seen: 8 hours, 41 minutes
|
|
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
PreparationH said: I support guns. I don't own one neither(yet.) If you want somewhere without guns move to australia, the government melted all their guns but the police still carry them, that doesn't make sense.
"if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns"
make sense now?
yea fuck that noise.
|
Ferris
PsychedelicJourneyman



Registered: 03/12/06
Posts: 11,529
|
|
Quote:
But not women?
I wouldn't say that they have as an equal a duty as their male counterparts, but as a feminist, of course I think that this applies to them as well.
-------------------- Discuss Politics
|
Ferris
PsychedelicJourneyman



Registered: 03/12/06
Posts: 11,529
|
Re: 2nd amendment [Re: Ferris]
#10853383 - 08/13/09 02:48 PM (14 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
If people feel threatened by the sight of a gun then they are foolish.
I'm not talking about people's "feelings" here. I'm talking about what is best for society from an ethical standpoint.
-------------------- Discuss Politics
|
Ferris
PsychedelicJourneyman



Registered: 03/12/06
Posts: 11,529
|
Re: 2nd amendment [Re: Ferris]
#10853407 - 08/13/09 02:51 PM (14 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Yes, the gun may leap from the holster all by itself and open fire on the "wimmin and childruns"
Violent situations happen. What could be solved with a tackling could turn into a shooting. The odds are acceptable when a few responsible individuals have guns (talking by their own choice, forget the damn state exists for a second). But when the number climbs, variable change makes the odds of gun violence climb at a disproportionate corollary (I'll call this the "itchy trigger finger" theory).
-------------------- Discuss Politics
|
youbreakyoubuy
Monkey Mouth



Registered: 10/16/05
Posts: 2,632
Last seen: 13 years, 9 months
|
|
Quote:
PreparationH said:
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
PreparationH said: I support guns. I don't own one neither(yet.) If you want somewhere without guns move to australia, the government melted all their guns but the police still carry them, that doesn't make sense.
"if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns"
make sense now?
yea fuck that noise.
if only outlaws have guns then wouldn't the police know who to shoot?
-------------------- Let that which doesn't matter truly not matter.
|
Ferris
PsychedelicJourneyman



Registered: 03/12/06
Posts: 11,529
|
Re: 2nd amendment [Re: Ferris]
#10853425 - 08/13/09 02:53 PM (14 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
No-one has suggested that everyone bring there own gun. Limiting how many can is moronic.
Really dude, get a life.
Man should regulate himself in this matter in absence of state regulations, as I've made it very clear.
Just because one has a right, doesn't mean he can or should exercise it. If exercising this right has the potential to harm society, he has the ethical obligation to exercise restraint in this matter.
-------------------- Discuss Politics
|
PreparationH
apply daily


Registered: 03/28/05
Posts: 18,335
Loc: Amsterdam
Last seen: 8 hours, 41 minutes
|
|
Quote:
youbreakyoubuy said:
Quote:
PreparationH said:
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
PreparationH said: I support guns. I don't own one neither(yet.) If you want somewhere without guns move to australia, the government melted all their guns but the police still carry them, that doesn't make sense.
"if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns"
make sense now?
yea fuck that noise.
if only outlaws have guns then wouldn't the police know who to shoot?
Sure, and we would have no guns to defend ourselves from home invasions, it's cool though because the cops will just get the guy with the gun after he murders the whole family. at least he is caught. lol this is why I want a gun and so much ammo I won't ever need more, in case logic like this gets out of hand and we go the path of Australia and out law fire arms.
|
UpSwell
Stranger


Registered: 11/01/04
Posts: 436
Last seen: 14 years, 4 months
|
Re: 2nd amendment [Re: Ferris]
#10853453 - 08/13/09 02:58 PM (14 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I was wondering if you were going to get there.
The 2nd Amendment is a conspicuous standout in our Bill of Rights. Virtually all of the other rights, the States have to comply with the limitations imposed by the Constitution on the Federal government. But somehow, magically, the 2nd doesn't apply.
If the Court hears any of the modern incorporation cases, they will most likely have to follow precedent and incorporate the 2nd, or risk upsetting the entire precedent system for incorporation on all of the other rights.
No wonder the cowardly bastards don't want to hear it.
|
Psilo_Subliminal
Delta



Registered: 12/10/07
Posts: 1,494
Loc: Dagobah
Last seen: 9 years, 5 months
|
|
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
PreparationH said: I support guns. I don't own one neither(yet.) If you want somewhere without guns move to australia, the government melted all their guns but the police still carry them, that doesn't make sense.
"if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns"
make sense now?
yea fuck that noise.
if only outlaws have guns then wouldn't the police know who to shoot?
Sure, and we would have no guns to defend ourselves from home invasions, it's cool though because the cops will just get the guy with the gun after he murders the whole family. at least he is caught. lol this is why I want a gun and so much ammo I won't ever need more, in case logic like this gets out of hand and we go the path of Australia and out law fire arms.
im pretty sure if this ever occoured it would spark the next civil war.
-------------------- "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."
|
PreparationH
apply daily


Registered: 03/28/05
Posts: 18,335
Loc: Amsterdam
Last seen: 8 hours, 41 minutes
|
|
one of the few things I would fight for. so I agree. It's pretty sad, I would rather go to war with my own country than with the middle east.
|
Psilo_Subliminal
Delta



Registered: 12/10/07
Posts: 1,494
Loc: Dagobah
Last seen: 9 years, 5 months
|
|
Quote:
PreparationH said: one of the few things I would fight for. so I agree. It's pretty sad, I would rather go to war with my own country than with the middle east.
but for what gain? thats the question.
Our right to fire arms, or a bunch of camels and sand?
-------------------- "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
|
Quote:
PreparationH said:
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
PreparationH said: I support guns. I don't own one neither(yet.) If you want somewhere without guns move to australia, the government melted all their guns but the police still carry them, that doesn't make sense.
"if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns"
make sense now?
yea fuck that noise.
just tellin ya that apparently those cops are the outlaws
|
Ferris
PsychedelicJourneyman



Registered: 03/12/06
Posts: 11,529
|
|
This is why certain groups of gun rights people scare me a lot more than not having guns to aim at the big ol bad government.
-------------------- Discuss Politics
|
PreparationH
apply daily


Registered: 03/28/05
Posts: 18,335
Loc: Amsterdam
Last seen: 8 hours, 41 minutes
|
|
isn't everyone in australia an outlaw lol. maybe 400 years ago or so that statement would work.
|
|